100% "warming" data last hundred years fabricated?
- Thread starter kafka0117
- Start date
Maybe it's not the weather that has become political, but all of the proposed solutions to the weather.
Yeah, when "the science is settled" and everyone must accept the "fact" that man made global warming is killing the planet, and the only proposed solutions involve making a select few richer, or transferring wealth from the US to the UN, people may start to think that science being "settled", and the refusal to entertain varying viewpoints or answer questions about the changing of historic data doesn't sound like science at all, and might be trumped up just so people will go for the proposed solutions.
When the US government is attempting to solve a "problem", that "problem" will necessarily become political since there will always be arguments as to the solutions.
As I said before, I'd rather burn up in a fiery planet than send one single dime of US taxpayer money to the UN or another country to combat global warming. We'll figure out a way to deal with warming in the US. I could go for a few extra degrees of warmth year round in the Ohio River Valley.
Well, if 97% (or more) of the scientists are correct, you may get your wish.
To me, there is a difference in legitimate debate over science, and just wilfully and intentionally ignoring the science and your own common sense just because the scientific conclusions would indicate we need to make some hard choices. And quickly.
P.S. Who said anything about the UN? I for one would continue to encourage Americans to continue to develop renewable energy, fuel conservation (e.g. hybrid cars), nuclear power, and the like over the fossil fuel industries (who also have been subsidized for many many decades).
Can you explain what that even means? I realize you're just repeating something you read online or saw on John Oliver, but can you elaborate on what you mean by "97% or more of the scientists"?
Just because someone is a scientist doesn't make them a expert in climate science. It's safe to say no one knows the affect man has on climate. Until it's proven keep my electric bill and gas prices low.
Posting a highly biased right-wing opinion piece as fact is sure to be a start of a completely objective discussion.
Offsets the monthly left wing biased ******** that gets posted.
Watching people dance around the tax component in these threads is funny. Too busy with buzz words and feel good.
I would tell you Pffft.... but, I don't know how to spell it.[winking]
How about we charge other countries with a carbon tax? Didn't think of that one did ya.
NOAA>>NASA>>US DEPT. OF COMMERCE>>US FEDERAL GOVT.
"waaaaaahh, science deniers get money from oil companies"
"waaaaaahh, science deniers get money from oil companies"
No doubt.
It's the reason why I think wingnuts on both sides are hilarious. They're all full of ****, but too brainwashed into a singular way of thinking to realize it.
Until China's CO2 is controlled, whatever
That's the way to go. China puts out the most. Start there. When that's collected, talk to me.
The sensitivity of temperature to CO2 level is so far quite small so why anything needs to be done quickly escapes me.
Burning wood & growing trees is renewable energy. Don't see how that helps. I guess cause the growth consumes CO2?
Hybrids have a minimal impact on fossil fuel usage.
To me, nukes & clean fossil fuel plants with CO2 capture are the way to go.
Kinda as idiotic as right wingers that reject global warming just because the left believes in it.
Your idiotic rhetoric is 100% what's wrong with politics on tgis planet.
"I'd rather the planet be destroyed than make one political or monetary concession."
GTFO. Too bad there's not such a thing as ultra extreme localized global warming directed straight at your brain.
We don't reject it cause you believe in it. We know it's BS and the motivations for it and how the left has been wrongn so many times on this garbage topic.
Repackaging of some crap that went around a couple years ago. This is looking only at US temperatures. The US, which is 4% of the Earth's surface. When you look at these same adjustments globally, they don't cause a net movement of temperatures up or down.
Its based on science, you dumb f*ck.
Seriously, look how stupid this post is. You reject all science because the left has been wrong before? I mean, that is dumb on so many levels. So if a liberal says 2+2=4, you reject it? Its just difficult reading the dumb *** garbage you spew.
You preach about people needing safe spaces, or participation trophies, but you are the walking embodiment of a participation trophy. You are discussing a scientific postion, and you think your "opinion" some how holds water to 10's of 1000's of scientist because what? You think you have common sense? Its like you think you are as good as Michael Jordan because you know what a basketball is. Pure participation trophy thinking. Good work, snowflake...
Settled science. Might as well argue against evolution but then again the "Creationist" crowd does that, too.
Look, you're only making yourselves look like neanderthals. The world has moved on. If you can't understand the hard irrefutable science then at least have the common sense to shut up and hide your ignorance rather than flout it about in the face of complete unblemished worldwide scientific unanimity.
Look, you're only making yourselves look like neanderthals. The world has moved on. If you can't understand the hard irrefutable science then at least have the common sense to shut up and hide your ignorance rather than flout it about in the face of complete unblemished worldwide scientific unanimity.
Its snowflake participation trophy thinking. They think their opinions are just as valid as science. That just being there, makes them important.
You think the US is the only temps the NOAA has manipulated to fit an agenda?
At what point do you start to question what you're being told?
No LEK, 2+2 isn't in argument. Math is irrefutable, it's the manipulation of the data used to create the math that's in doubt.
When somebody thinks I am dumb enough to believe they are going to really ban all muslims from entering the US, build a giant wall all the way across our southern border, dismantle the ACA, and throw all illegal aliens out of the country.
There isnt manipulation of data. That is the disconnect here. Your snowflake participation trophy thinking has you believing that youve uncovered some "scheme" in settled science that is lurking forward to manipulate you for tax dollars. Its what you do with the data that is manipulation. The science says man is affecting climate and its changing. That is 2+2. If some government wants to take that and argue for taxing ****, well that is a different argument completely. Learn to separate ideas.
Nice deflection Z, you were right about one thing, the Dems have lost the rust belt lol.
Learn to open your eyes and take a look for yourself before you jump off a ledge.
The data is and has been manipulated, it's how they can compare temps now to past readings. It's why those same past readings change year to year.
The climate has and will continue to change, but man isn't causing it.
Learn to open my eyes? Ok, snowflake, I will reject the entire scientific field over your "common sense" thinking. Thank God you were here to enlighten me. I mean, millions of hours of research, 10's of 1000's of scientists, an entire field of settled science, but whew! there you are to save me.
Our argument here is the entire work of the scientific community vs your "nuh uh." Pretty sure someone in this argument is being willfully ignorant.
So far, we know earth is a pretty good place to live. It has water and an atmosphere that isn't instant death to carbon based life forms. Venus is about 800 degrees and it rains sulfuric acid. On Neptune it rains diamonds. Astronomers have found a number of planets outside our solar system and have yet to find anything habitable that we could get to.
I'm gonna trust the scientists. If the scientists are wrong about climate change, and we don't listen, then cool. Keep on keeping on. If they're right, and we don't listen, well that's gonna suck for our grandchildren.
I'm gonna trust the scientists. If the scientists are wrong about climate change, and we don't listen, then cool. Keep on keeping on. If they're right, and we don't listen, well that's gonna suck for our grandchildren.
IF, the temperature had risen due to CO2 levels, it would have CONTINUED to increase along with increased CO2 levels. It did not. It has not. It will not. That is science. Not the OPINION of a dentist in Zimbabwe.
Neither are a concern for the climate at levels they are currently at or are likely to ever be.
Aside from being the single dumbest sentence in the history of everything... it is even more perfect because he put "science" in quotations. It's little touches like that that make The Paddock what it is.
Science isn't about consensus, it's about proof. Where is yours? You want to post that list again? You know even less about science than you do economics. That was derogatory by the way.Aside from being the single dumbest sentence in the history of everything... it is even more perfect because he put "science" in quotations. It's little touches like that that make The Paddock what it is.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic. Science is not even in the business of proving you imbecile. Please take comfort in your Jesus riding on Dinosaurs posters and stay out of something you don't even understand at a rudimentary level.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.
In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.
Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven.
In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.
The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.
The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.” What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven. Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false. But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my *** tomorrow. In my judgment, both events are about equally likely.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.
In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.
Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven.
In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.
The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.
The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.” What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven. Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false. But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my *** tomorrow. In my judgment, both events are about equally likely.
Thanks for proving my point. Jesus and dinosaurs have nothing to do with my argument. Show me some proof of your man made global warming religion. You want others to accept the claims based on faith just like you have, rube. You are obviously incapable of understanding a simple concept such as cause and effect or knowing when someone has appealed to the lowest common denominator, since you are one of the lowest. Show me some proof, son.